@quantumSoup Not in meta, at first, plenty of people's actions have been questioned in meta without exposing the person themselves. If the discussion in meta showed a resolution, then I'd enact it as a mod, referencing the original discussion in meta.

@RobertHarvey Yes, I've disagreed with some of Jeff's decisions. But that's part of team work: not everyone can have their way at all times. That the way the cookie crumbles, as my mother used to say...

@RebeccaChernoff Same as last night, thank you, it's a wonderful experience, and I'm happy to be here among so many other qualified candidates. Thank you for the opportunity, and no matter what, SO is going to be better off as a result.

@NullUserExceptionఠ_ఠ Respectfully back down. If the broad majority of users disagree, then they likely win. Although I'd also mention that it varies by situation. If other mods agree, I'd be more likely to "hold my position".

@TimCooper I was thinking about this today. There's possibly an element of that, but it's also likely that high rep users are providing better answers, both technically and in terms of presentation and distilling a question to the core point.

@RobertHarvey I can't dig up the Meta issues that I've disagreed with him on, but I do recall emailing the team and having an argument back in the day about the value of votes on questions vs. votes on answers. I thought they should count less on questions and he did not. In the end, he did respond to the community and lowered the question vote value. As with everyone, be polite and explain your reasoning clearly.

@AdamDavis I don't think my time on the site would change hugely. My use of mod tools (10k and otherwise) clearly would but I'm not going to make unsustainable promises. As far as minimum hours per week goes I don't think it's a great metric, people take holidays etc. I'd say the alarm bells should ring when a mod is out of touch through a lack of activity but defining a solid figure without good data to begin with seems premature

@NullUserExceptionఠ_ఠ As I answered @MrDisappontment, I'd probably spend larger amounts of time moderating than asking/answering. Moderating is a responsibility, but also a privilege - which I'd like to take advantage of, given the opportunity.

@Shog9 depends how big the flaw was - I wouldn't edit to correct a major flaw (that would be changing the meaning of the answer in my view). I'd probably comment and vote with a view to changing the vote once the flaw was corrected if it was major

@phwd it depends what value the question delivers by still existing. closed/locked is a sensible status for questions which were topical and were interesting, but the community sense of "topical" has shifted.

@Xaade I'm not saying that if you don't have the badge then you're inexperienced, but it means that you most likely don't have less than X experience. The reason why it was removed is your argument - a year may be unnecessary.

@MichaelMrozek There's some merit to the idea that a mod can't always classify content when they have little to no experience in a language. If the mod tools don't benefit a mod interesting in a top x tag, then the mod tools are deficient. So, your argument is after the fact, and doesn't discuss the real issue.

@jonsca When answering that question, you can probably reference the fact that a lot of the mods on SE 2.0 sites didn't have 10k before becoming mods, the tools aren't that hard to learn, and there's always TL to consult if you're not sure. Being in the primary is usually a good proxy to being savy with a computer. Evidence that you could make good decisions when using the tools would, IMO, be much more important than knowing how to use them.

@RobertHarvey I dislike that so far all of the "block bad migrations by X" have been declined. Some bad migrations are painful to watch (although can often be averted by a plain vote to close + a mod flag and comment). I don't think that's a big problem though!

@RebeccaChernoff thanks if you've voted for me so far. (If you're hesitant I'd be glad to chat more - I'm regularly in the C++ chat room if I've got a web browser to hand) I'd like more moderator tools to increase the usefulness of the things I do. In exchange for that I'll do my best to be fair, efficient and reflect the will of the community.

@TimPost I consider that to be an abuse of mod powers, to be honest. Thats not to say that I wouldn't rule it out completely, but most likely not.

@AdamDavis That's what the 10k and mod tools are for, no? If I see something that needs to be dealt with, it's silly not to do so simply because "nobody else flagged it yet", but again, case by case is an important consideration.

@TimPost Back down where appropriate. There's no reason to entertain confrontation.

@RobertHarvey Spelling and grammar are important for communication. Capitalization is also important. Generally, I'd try to assess where the deficiency stems from. If the user uses textspeak, it's not the same as just plain poor grammar skills. Sometimes it's negligence and sometimes it's a result of lack of knowledge.

@MichaelMrozek I mean, if you don't know a tag well enough, how can you tell if a question is off-topic. Generically you can determine if it should be closed. However, someone not familiar with the context will have false close-worthy positives and negatives.

@Xaade Because "moderating the tag" isn't a thing. Mods moderate the whole site; most of the time they're not even going to look at the tags on a question. They see a flag, they deal with it, and being familiar with a tag is rarely necessary. @awoodland's merging example is one case where it might help, but that's about it

@MichaelMrozek So, if there's a C++ question, and the flag is stating that the question is too simple because a simple google search gives the answer. How do you judge if the question is simple enough to close?

Then why is parts of flagging automated, to say, chat ban, or such. If flags alone can judge "banning accounts", then they can judge "destroying accounts". From what I see, the mod is redundant with the system, because the system itself doesn't trust the mod.

@Xaade The assumption is if we trust mods to do the really important stuff, it's kind of silly that they still need to vote on things like closing a post; clearly they know what they're doing or they wouldn't be mods

@awoodland Then let a single high-rep member overturn a binding vote. Mods can't both be specialize enough to binding close, and generic enough to not allow a mod per tag. Paradoxical statement of the century.

That's what I'm getting at.

You're giving them abilities assuming that they will have specialized knowledge, then denying the fact that they need to have specialized knowledge to appropriately use those abilities.

@Shog9 I believe that binding close votes should be reserved for closing a question that doesn't have traffic, or closing a question that does have traffic but only if the mod is knowledgeable on the subject. The current system does not make that distinction, and it has resulting is false close positives. Having top 30 tags each have a dedicated mod would reduce the amount of false close positives, but I've been berated for suggesting such. I haven't demonstrated to people in this room.

You may have seen moderators responding to flags asking for a question to be closed that shouldn't have, and incorrectly closing it - this has happened, and it's largely a symptom of two factors: too few mods, too many flags thrown in their faces. We're tackling both of these problems: most flags now have to spend time in front of 10Kers before getting any mod attention, and more moderators are being brought on board.

@MichaelMrozek Because mods should be more specialized than the community. And you disagree. Chat ban on flags is a result of having too much for a mod to do because the system doesn't let the community do so, until it automated assuming the community knows better. They're related because I can't work out, given the current system, what a mod should be doing.

SO long ago passed the point where any reasonable number of moderators could handle things like closing. This can sorta work on much, much smaller sites... But by the time you hit the scale of SO, you either depend on the community doing the vast bulk of the work, or you throw up your hands and watch it go down the tubes.

@Xaade It may. Or it may be parochial 10K users. This is why we have Meta, so that disputes can be handled in public.

FWIW: if anyone hasn't seen the new Review page yet, check it out. Much, much more useful. Especially if you're interested in closing things that aren't getting enough attention, or keeping things from being closed that just need some TLC.

@Shog9 Now I understand the intent of the Mod. Handle generic cases that can't be handled by the community. If the case is too technical, the Mod should rely on the community. Anytime a Mod closes an edgy question that they have no experience, they've crossed the line.

@AnnaLear Yeah I knew that PSE was used as a bit of a dumping ground, and that isn't helped by the fact there is an overlap between that and SO (there are q's that could belong on either)

@AdamDavis IMO, 3 hours a day or more is a good minimum benchmark. Personally I spend considerably more time than this so being elected would not mean I had to change my attendance pattern. Of course I say this without knowing the specifics of exactly how much mod work needs to be chewed through per day, but IMO if you can't spend the 3 hours then you are only a light user of the site.

@Shog9 Worthy of a medal once enough has been done. The badge is to reward consistent behaviour, without it people would be less inclined to be admirable for long periods of time :)

@phwd As I mentioned in my moderator spiel, this is an area that needs to be cleaned up. However I do believe that some of these old questions need to be preserved because they are part of the fabric and history of SO, and some of them can be quite enlightening or educational.

@random You need to raise it with them first, remind them that modding is a duty and responsibility, not just the ultimate badge. You then discuss your concerns with the other mods. If enough agree then you can form a witch-burning mob and.... ask them to step down.

@quantumSoup Treat them the same as any other user, they shouldn't get preferential treatment in this area just because they are a mod. But having said that, I would expect a mod to be of good character and not engage (or even need to engage) in that sort of behaviour.

@TimPost I have noticed this actually is the case with some of the VLQ flags in the queue. VLQ is a matter of opinion, but I wonder sometimes if they are raised maliciously on answers... in any case, I would prefer that people down vote and save the VLQ flags for the truly low quality posts. I've posted on meta about this before: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/94783/…

@TimPost If I would do it for a user, then I would do it for myself. IOW, if the edits were over a period of time and done to make it into a truly brilliant and helpful answer, then I would revert it from CW. If not (i.e. the edits were because of slack editing or being lazy with the answer) then it stays CW.